Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Second Appeal from original. Order No. 711 of 1979,'decided on Ist April 1980. ‑
‑‑ S. 15(4) read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Appeal Condonation of delay‑Section 5 of Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑Held, not applicable to appeals filed under S. 15 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ‑[Interpretation of statutes‑Limitation‑Appeal (civil)].
Allah Ditta v. Farooq Ahmad P L D 1979 Lah. 917 rel.
Shahid Hussain Kadri for Appellant.
Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 1st April, 19 0.
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge Gujranwala dated I6‑9‑1979 and is barred by time by 12 days. The respondent had filed an triplication for the eviction of the appellant from a shop situate in Chowk Thanewala, Gujranwala on the ground of default in the payment of rent apart from the ground of damage. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application vide his order dated 23rd December, 1978. The respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge vide his order dated 16‑9‑197_9 and ordered the eviction of the appellant on the ground of default in the pad‑inept of the rent for the month of November, 1975.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant ‑ has submitted that the appellant was not a defaulter and the appeal had been admitted to consider this question. Alongwith the appeal there is an application for the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the appellant had remained ill between 5th of November, 1979 to 25th off November, 1979 in order to cover the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the appeals filed under Section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance and reliance in this behalf may be placed on Allah Ditta v. Farooq Ahmad (P L D 1979 Lah. 917).
3. This appeal is dismissed as barred by time. As the petitioner is in possession of business premises he is allowed four months' time to deliver the vacant possession to the respondent subject to his payment of monthly rent. The parties shall bear their own costs.
K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer